Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[lugnut33]

LOL, there is always going to be a break point that is somewhat arbitrary. From a company standpoint they cannot and will not call the sales staff and say something like "be careful in this areas because we're going to make changes". The guides don't find out most things until we do or after, often after. The reason is if you tell them, or any similar group of employees, some will pass it along and then it becomes a much bigger mess with rumors posted places like here and then people start calling and emailing MS about the rumor of whatever the topic is. The guides are not clueless overall, it's just poor business to let such issues trickle down to such levels where it'll likely leak out. Think if your favorite restaurant closes and you show up for dinner with a reservation only to find they closed that day with a sign on the door for employees to call X number to get their final paycheck. I've seen this happen many time over the years though I don't agree with the approach, it's still the best one from a business standpoint.

To go a step further, this might be considered a trade secret for DVD/DVC and anyone who did let the cat out of the bag would likely have been putting their job on the line. You get no argument that the timing was somewhat poor, that it should have been out by or before the BLT chart was available, but it simply didn't happen so DVC and the members must go forward. Ask yourself one question, would most of the people posting saying they are upset, not be upset if DVC had done it that way. I would bet you that every single person who has posted on this thread as being upset isn't mad because of the timing, they're mad because of the change itself. The timing just rubs salt in the wound. With the two AKV fiasco's, this, the wait list changes and the reservation lead time changes; one has to ask themselves whether the current (and possibly future) DVC is right for them. The truth is they should have asked that question up front and assumed worst case scenarios. IMO these are minor issues that should not rock the foundation of one's DVC ownership and they are things where such changes and issues should be anticipated. Not that every specific change can be anticipated but that one should expect changes, and screw-ups, and know that most of them will not be favorable to everyone. I think people have held DVC to too high of a standard over the years and that some of these issues are simply bringing them back closer to earth. YMMV.

Assume worst case scenario because buyers are dealing with Slick Vito the Used Car Salesman? Is that what DVC is? Here I thought DVC/Disney was a standup company but now you're telling me they are no better than anybody else. That's disappointing isn't it?

I was at Doorway To Dreams today and got a tour of the BLT rooms they have displayed. I subtely dropped the point reallocation thing on the tour guide and he said he hadn't heard about it until he read the e-mail from corporate and really wasn't up on it. He also said no matter what DVC does there will always be upset members. I didn't pursue it from there because I was there to look at the model, not badger the guy. What I did learn was the guides were totally clueless about it.

Again though, higer-ups were not clueless and I wouldn't be surprised to see a lawsuit or two come out of this because literally DVC is taking money (in this case it's value) right out of people's pockets before they even use the product.

 

[lugnut33]

One other thing Dean, you harp on how the buyer needs to make the most informed decision they can possibly make. However, how could BLT/AKV buyers make an informed decision when a very important peice of information is being held classified by DVC? Should the buyer higher a psychic?

 

[lugnut33]

Perhaps people should think back to when DVC first started. I believe that at the time, the minimum points to buy in was somewhere around 240?? To me, it was obvious that the original intent was that people would basically buy points for a full 1 week stay. However, in order to increase sales, as the price per point rose, they decreased the minimum number of points required to buy in.

I think that now they have too many members who bought small contracts, planning on only 5 night stays and as a result, are not having availablility for those who want to stay a full 7 nights. This probably came to light more when the changes to the booking policies were changed.

Nice thing about the small contract like I have is we can stay the full week every other year.

 

[Mattsmommy]

DOES NOT CHANGE MEANS DOES NOT CHANGE. That means even one point. I would love to have those 11,328 points you are blowing off. If the average vacation contract was 200 points, that is 56 extra contracts, or if the average person was now short by 2 points that is 5664 people that have to re-adjust their vacations. Maybe you should think this through.

WALT WOULD BE TURNING OVER IN HIS GRAVE!

Maybe those 11,328 extra points are due because of the THV

 

[bookwormde]

From what I have been able to determine there is no variation in the total points allowed when they make this adjustment, not even 1 point. I suspect though that if there were less total points and DVC “retired” the difference that that would be acceptable, even though it does not meet the letter of the contract.

bookwormde

 

[Spacedude]

I have been reading some of these posts and understand this will affect everyone differently.

We purchased our initial points (250) in 1994 at OKW, (actually it was not OKW it was just DVC at the WDW resort). It was the only property at the time (I don’t think we even had 6000 members yet). I remember our guide telling us how the point system worked and how they could redistribute the points, from time to time, based on demand and other factors. I also remember our guide telling us that there discussions of other vacation club properties but no guarantee that there would be other DVC properties other than OKW (now look at DVC).

At the time, 210 points were the minimum purchase, not 160 nor 150. I asked why; and my guide told me it was primarily for two reasons: 1) it was enough points to get a week in the summer under the current point chart, and 2) it allowed an exchange for a week to RCI (yes we had RCI before II and now we are back). (The key was to require a minimum purchase to have enough points for a full flexible week for a family, sometime, somewhere (not every time, anywhere)).

After my tour and understanding what my wife and I wanted for our family, and fully understanding the point system, we purchased 250 to have a bit of a point buffer. We purchased the extra points knowing that DVC would (not could) at some time redistribute the points. About two or three years after we purchased (maybe someone can help me as to when they did this), the OKW points were redistributed, a bit similar to what they did for 2010, not as much however; but they were redistributed none the less. Not a surprise to us what so ever; and frankly expected the redistribution to be more dynamic (in other words we expected DVC to do this every few years).

As new properties were introduced, at some point in time (again maybe someone can help me); DVC lowered the threshold for the minimum point purchase to 150. I knew, without even talking to my guide, that this would encourage new members to purchase points based only on a Sun through Thurs stay (everyone has their own situation); and I knew that the points would again get redistributed, because the reservations would predominantly be for a Sun through Thurs stays (there are a few times we do have trouble getting some weekdays and have to waitlist or shift our dates for a few of our vacations). I did not ask my guide, “Do you think they will redistribute the points?” I asked my guide (many times over the years), “When are you going to redistribute the points?” Why? Because, I expected the redistribution of points to be much more dynamic, and that this would be a management tool for DVC, hence the extra points I purchased.

I don’t fault DVC for doing this, but I do fault them for:
1. Lowering the minimum point purchase without a redistribution at the same time (which encouraged the Sun through Thurs only stays; therefore, contributing to the redistribution need)
2. Not redistributing the points in a more dynamic fashion (smaller but more frequent tweaks to the point system, not waiting 10+ years since the last one; which members would have been accustomed) (Waiting this long left a false impression that they would never do redistribute again, and frankly I did not think they would even though I kept asking)
3. Not letting us know of the possible redistribution of points in 2010 prior to posting the chart. They are giving us advance notice (it is for 2010), but they could have told us of the intent, prior to posting

We have added on at OKW and have purchased at SSR since our initial purchase; so we now enough points to flex our vacation (I know not everyone is in the same boat). We do a few stays on Fri through Sun for weekend events, for example when I run the WDW Marathon, but for the most part will continue to use our points for a full one week or more, time and points permitting.

If I can find the original OKW charts (I know I have them somewhere) I will post them for readers curiosity (maybe some else might post it before I do).

I know some of you may disagree with my comments, go ahead let me have it…I’m in the military I can take it; I have thick skin and have seen much more life changing events than this. From my perspective, if this is one of the largest events you have to manage for your family, you are blessed (very blessed), but I understand everyone has a different perspective.

 

[CheapMom]

From what I have been able to determine there is no variation in the total points allowed when they make this adjustment, not even 1 point. I suspect though that if there were less total points and DVC “retired” the difference that that would be acceptable, even though it does not meet the letter of the contract.

bookwormde

When it is put in terms 0.075% it doesn't sound so bad- but if they mathematically had to have a change of a fraction of a percent- they should have made it decrease by that amount not increase.
The problem is, if they are allowed to increse it by a fraction of a percent this year, they can do the same thing next year, and the year after that and so on. It just isn't right.

 

[Doug7856]

I am one of those who believes that Disney did what its fiduciary responsibility to members requires, although I think that it delayed this move too many years, thus making it more painful. I also believe the short notice is totally disrespectful. DVC booking works best when planned well in advance.
I wish there were a way to put pressure on Disney to open a window for multiple point transfers and for small point add-ons. Although I know that some folks are too angry to consider putting any more $$ into DVC vacations, I think that there are some who just want to solve their new point shortage dilemma. Once the initial shock and fury have passed, there remains the task of work-arounds. I wish I knew of an effective way of organizing an effort to facilitate solutions for those members who are most negatively impacted.

Your comments accurately reflect my opinion. My complaint in not the change per say, it is how DVC implemented it -- the poor timing and disrespect for it members. Disney has lost a lot of good will with many of it's members, but I suspect that over time many of us will move on and purchase what we need to correct our new imbalance. Let's face it, Disney has created an emotional bond with it's fans and to be willing to short change us with so little concern of our view is disappointing.

With regard to Disney being a business, my feeling is that when Disney succeeds profit wise, my experience is more likely to be enhanced and enjoyable.

 

[dcfromva]

... Because, I expected the redistribution of points to be much more dynamic, and that this would be a management tool for DVC, hence the extra points I purchased...

I don’t fault DVC for doing this, but I do fault them for:
1. Lowering the minimum point purchase without a redistribution at the same time (which encouraged the Sun through Thurs only stays; therefore, contributing to the redistribution need)
2. Not redistributing the points in a more dynamic fashion (smaller but more frequent tweaks to the point system, not waiting 10+ years since the last one; which members would have been accustomed) (Waiting this long left a false impression that they would never do redistribute again, and frankly I did not think they would even though I kept asking)
3. Not letting us know of the possible redistribution of points in 2010 prior to posting the chart.

Spacedud,
I agree with you.
Based on our past travel patterns (generally over a long weekend), we will most likely benefit overall from the point reallocation. But, I do not like the way it was done. ( I will get over it, but not without a little grumbling first. )
We have been members since 2002 and have had an opportunity to add on some more points over the years. If this had occurred after we first bought, it might have had a more traumatic impact.
I can understand the need to reallocate based on useage, but why weren't these formulas applied to the new resorts as they came on-line BCV in 2002, SSR in 2004, AKV in 2008 (?) and most of all BLT--it isn't even open. How could they deem the need to reallocate the points in the period of 4months since sales started? Didn't they have this historical info when they were creating the first points charts (and using them as a sales tool) ?

 

[KLR-wlv]

Dean - you keep talking about your 10% buffer - what good does that do a Vero Beach owner who's weekdays have gone up 20%? And perhaps more in 2011. And when I spoke of relative "point bargains" that is in comparison to the new resorts they are going to be selling like Grand california's 1 bedroom villas for 46 points - not the older DVC's.

So basically what all of you harping on those who "didn't read the contract" are saying is - you should have bought twice the points so as not to be affected. I don't see why you can't see that if you have a 160 point contract that this is disproportionately hitting those folks more than those who have 400 and have always stayed a week. ENd of story. It sucks. Yes they could do it. Thanks for your infinite understanding and "We told you so's". It is terrific it doesn't hurt you. According to the polls here it DOES negatively impact about 40% of us.

 

[Dean]

DOES NOT CHANGE MEANS DOES NOT CHANGE. That means even one point. I would love to have those 11,328 points you are blowing off. If the average vacation contract was 200 points, that is 56 extra contracts, or if the average person was now short by 2 points that is 5664 people that have to re-adjust their vacations. Maybe you should think this through.

WALT WOULD BE TURNING OVER IN HIS GRAVE!

They change every year anyway due to where the weekends fall and leap year, actually more than this. Plus there are unsold points that are used for maintenance and points that have been bought back under ROFR. It is unrealistic to think that it will be 1000% the same yearly, with or without re-allocation.

There is one variable at SSR that I'm not sure how they account for, that being the lock-offs. A lock-off booked as a studio & 1BR commands more points than one booked as a two bedroom.

I'm about 99% certain they do the calculations assuming none are locked off for this purpose as well as the purpose of how many points are needed the entire year. There is however a worst case scenario stated in the POS that states that you can always reserve a day for at least X points for each unit size. It does not promise which day or your day or season, only that it must be available. Someone can check the POS for SSR but I'm guessing it's 1 day for 17 points for a studio.

I think you're exactly right about that. I'm one of the small contract, Sunday to Friday people, and the change isn't going to change my travel pattern. Weekend nights are still more points than I choose to spend, so I'll be staying in a value for 3-4 nights on one end of each trip. I'm not happy that my two 5-night trips went up a total of 15 points. I can live with it, but I'm definitely going to grumble about it.

The question isn't whether it affects one person but how it works over the group. The change from weekends to weekdays was quite significant so to think it won't affect weekend patters would seem would seem counterintuitive. It might not affects yours but it will likely mine plus it will free up a day here and there for someone else to reserve later due to the fact that you are able to reserve less weekdays with the smaller points package. That person may indeed stay the weekend. I think you'll see more weekend use and I think you'll see less points savings by avoiding weekend points stays but it will not be 100% nor should it be. And if it isn't close enough, they will change it again.

Perhaps people should think back to when DVC first started. I believe that at the time, the minimum points to buy in was somewhere around 240?? To me, it was obvious that the original intent was that people would basically buy points for a full 1 week stay. However, in order to increase sales, as the price per point rose, they decreased the minimum number of points required to buy in.

I think that now they have too many members who bought small contracts, planning on only 5 night stays and as a result, are not having availablility for those who want to stay a full 7 nights. This probably came to light more when the changes to the booking policies were changed.

There is even a statement in the POS to the effect that they are assuming 1 week on average per member. The original was 230 I believe but it was an attempt to sell more to less people which give mores profit than the same number of points to a larger number of members. They lowered the points to allow more people to be able to afford or agree to buy for one reason, more sales total and therefore more profit.

 

[DVC Mike]

They change every year anyway due to where the weekends fall and leap year, actually more than this. Plus there are unsold points that are used for maintenance and points that have been bought back under ROFR. It is unrealistic to think that it will be 1000% the same yearly, with or without re-allocation.

I'm about 99% certain they do the calculations assuming none are locked off for this purpose as well as the purpose of how many points are needed the entire year.

The POS for BCV states that the total number of points existing within a given Unit may not be increased or decreased - it is a fixed number of points. It shouldn't matter who owns the Unit's points -- DVD or members -- as long as the Unit has been declared into the condo association.

However, since it's the total number of points to reserve a unit every single night for an entire Use Year, it would have to vary on a Leap Year. Otherwise, I would expect the total number of points to be the same year over year.

DVCMC can allocate the points for that one Unit across each Use Year night. They can then only adjust certain Use Year nights upward or downward no more than 20%, as long as the total number of points required to reserve that Unit for the entire year remains the same.

Also, a "Unit" is a bit different at each resort. It may consist of a seperate building; it may be a single 2-BR lockoff, or it may be a single Studio. I think that's what makes it difficult to add up the points and compare.

For a 2-BR lockoff, DVC could increase the points for the Studio portion and decrease the points for the 1-BR portion, or vice versa. That might make it more challenging to compare the point charts.

I don't have the time to perform a detailed analysis of this myself, so I'll leave this as an intellectual exercise for the reader.

 

[Dean]

Assume worst case scenario because buyers are dealing with Slick Vito the Used Car Salesman? Is that what DVC is? Here I thought DVC/Disney was a standup company but now you're telling me they are no better than anybody else. That's disappointing isn't it?

It's not quite that bad but I will tell you that I have equated timeshare sales people with used car salesman on a number of occasions. Sometimes I offer a disclaimer that DVC is a cut above (they are), sometimes I don't. I have been taken to task for this comparison on more than one occasion, maybe not so much going forward. I have also posted many times about not believing what the salesperson says unless you see it in writing. It is interesting to me that this is such an issue when it is CLEARLY spelled out in the paperwork. This is not something you need even a basic understanding of legalese to grasp, only a 6th grade education. If one doesn't understand and read ahead of time, or after you get the papers (you have 10 days), OR if one sees it and assumes it's Disney so they won't really do that, shame on the buyer. To be honest, I think the guides are great overall and know of very few instances that appear to be purposeful lies, I do know of many instances where they just didn't know the product quite well enough or made recommendations that might have been good for someone one but not for that person. But you see I have knowledge and experience that can best be summed up by the saying "how do you know a timeshares salesperson is lying? You see their lips moving". Fortunately most aren't this bad and many are very good even outside DVC.

One other thing Dean, you harp on how the buyer needs to make the most informed decision they can possibly make. However, how could BLT/AKV buyers make an informed decision when a very important peice of information is being held classified by DVC? Should the buyer higher a psychic?

To a degree, yes you do have to forecast the future of both yourself and the timeshare. You had the info that said they could re-allocate the points, it was clearly spelled out. So you did have the info that they could do it and you should have considered that they might do so. The one group I do feel for in all of this are those that bought BLT and are having things change even before it opens, it is unfortunate. Question though, have you ever been to a timeshare presentation other than DVC?

the OKW points were redistributed, a bit similar to what they did for 2010, not as much however

Those affected by squabble with the idea that this is bigger. While they didn't change the weekend/weekday mix, they changed the season mix such that for OKW adventure season a studio went from 69 to 80, 1 BR 140 to 160, 2 BR from 189 to 218 and a GV from 309 to 356. There were minor increases in Choice season of about 3 points a week and some of those involved shifting from weekends to week days as well. There were decreases across ALL GV weeks for the year.

 

[Dean]

The POS for BCV states that the total number of points existing within a given Unit may not be increased or decreased - it is a fixed number of points. It shouldn't matter who owns the Unit's points -- DVD or members -- as long as the Unit has been declared into the condo association.

However, since it's the total number of points to reserve a unit every single night for an entire Use Year, it would have to vary on a Leap Year. Otherwise, I would expect the total number of points to be the same year over year.

DVCMC can allocate the points for that one Unit across each Use Year night. They can then only adjust certain Use Year nights upward or downward no more than 20%, as long as the total number of points required to reserve that Unit for the entire year remains the same.

Also, a "Unit" is a bit different at each resort. It may consist of a seperate building; it may be a single 2-BR lockoff, or it may be a single Studio. I think that's what makes it difficult to add up the points and compare.

For a 2-BR lockoff, DVC could increase the points for the Studio portion and decrease the points for the 1-BR portion, or vice versa. That might make it more challenging to compare the point charts.

I don't have the time to perform a detailed analysis of this myself, so I'll leave this as an intellectual exercise for the reader.

Mike the points I was making is that there is some normal variation and that there is a cushion. MOST units are a collection of multiple rooms. The only single room units I know of are GV, I know AKV and VB do have GV single units, OKW doesn't and I'm pretty sure HH doesn't. Not sure about SSR or BWV but given the setup at SSR, I'd be surprised if they were single room units. I am not aware of any single room units that are smaller than a GV and confident in saying there are none, they could not have a lockoff portion as a single unit legally.

 

[White_Sox_Fan]

I'm going to try this again as my last post apperently didn't get posted.

Maybe those 11,328 extra points are due because of the THV

No, I accounted for the THV points in the 2009 calculation, even though they are not available I included them for an apples to apples comarison.

Interestingly one extra day every four year, February 29, adds an additional 68,628 points available. As stated above because of leap years, total number of weekend days and possibe variables in which seasons these weekends may fall, the total number of points available per year can fluctuate and I'm sure that there is a little cushion left over for these instances.

Personally the fact that so many people are saying this will impact them because they go Sun - Thur is evidence of the need to reallocate the points as they did. The key, as stated before, is to level demand equally across the entire spectrum of days in a week and season in a year. If this is not done there will be a lot of people that will be unable to use there points because they will not be able to get the rooms they want, when they want.

I fully understand the feelings of the people who are going to have there vactions shortened or accomodations lowered because of the change, but overall this is for the good of the entire system and something that was always possible. It's like those investment commercials, past performance may not be indicative of future performance. We all have learned how true that is in the last year.

 

[bookwormde]

I am working on checking the OKW points, found an error in my spreadsheet so I am reworking them be back soon

Anyone know in what year OKW was declared.

bookwormde

 

[drusba]

Many issues have been discussed above about the change, Disney's right to do so, what buyers were told during the sale process, and whether the total points have changed. It is interesting that the views tend to be black or white -- Disney definitely had a right to do this so no one can complain or "I was told otherwise" and this is not proper. The impact on me personally is not much -- sometimes when we go it will help, sometimes it will not. However, nothing is black and white:

1. Changing total points: They cannot change total points per year. That includes that they are not allowed to have some minor variance from year to year because of timing of weekends and leap year as suggested above. The official documents state that they determine total points based a hypothetical 365 day year having a usual number of weekends both annually and per season. That rules out having annual differences because of actual number of weekend days in any given season and year or for leap year. In other words, those new point totals have to be exactly the same as before and they cannot even vary by 1. Someone noted that possibly they could be 1 less and thus it would be proper to do it. No, they cannot be 1 less because that would mean that resort is now illegally oversold by that 1 point. However, trying to add points up based on the the old and new charts is likely not going to provide an answer to whether total points have changed. This is because of the 2BR lock-offs. In determining total points to be sold in relation to those they did not count them all as 2BR lock-offs or all as 1BR and studio (for which combined the points needed to reserve are higher than as a 2BR lock-off). They did, and were allowed to do, a reasonable estimate before starting sales as to likely demand for those lock-offs as 2BRs and likely demand as 1BRs and studios and then sell total points based on that estimate. The point charts do not tell you what the difference is between estimated use as 2BRs versus 1BRs and studios that was originally used to determine total points and, without knowing that, I do not think you can do calculations from the existing charts to see if total points have changed. I would guess they were careful not to change total points.

2. Right to Change: Your Multi-Site Public Offering Statement has a section III called "Multi-Site Public Offering Text" that has in it a section entltled "Demand Balancing and Vacation Points." That section states that Disney can adjust the points for any given use day from one year to the next up to a 20% difference (up or down) from the prior year as long as the total points remain the same (the current changes seem to indicate a change that is less than 20% per day up or down). It also states that could result in the leveling of the seasons or a maximum reallocation that could result in the leveling of the difference between the days of the week. It also says that adjustment can be made between different size vacation homes, e.g., the points needed for a 1BR could increase while a 2BR decreases. Thus, this section appears to give Disney the power to do what it has done.

However, as I said nothing is black and white. Disney may have created an ambiguity. If you look at the documents you signed, there is one called the Product Understanding Acknowledgment. This is an important document because it is the one you actually sign and thus you may not really be able to say you did not read or understand it. Paragraph 9 reveals Disney's right to adjust points. However, it is not as absolute as the the Multi-Site document. It says: "The number of vacation points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand." Note the word "seasonal." It does not say the change can be based on changes in demand for days of the week and seasonal would indicate it is referring to changes because of demand in the different seasons Disney has established and the current change does not appear to be that kind of change. The sentence above refers to a "particular vacation home" and then a subsection says, "If Vacation Points for one specific night increase, it will be offset by a decrease on another night or nights." That is vague because it does not actually say you can raise points for a 1BR while lowering for a studio.

Disney thus seems to have opened the door to a dispute as to whether it could do what it did because the signed disclosure statement says its reallocation right is something different from and more limited than the Multi-Site document.

3. Recent Purchasers: Also presented as black and white is the position of recent purchasers at BLT or AKV, some of whom, at least, were apparently told the points would remain the same. The response to their concerns has been that the documents they agreed to, and perhaps did not read, rule out their complaint. As noted above the documents are not as clear as many think. Also, the recent purchaser has a different issue than others. A timeshare seller is supposed to reveal any material facts that may impact on the decision to purchase. Disney possibly through the documents revealed that it was retaining the right to make the changes it did. However, if Disney knew it was in fact going to make this change, which would go into effect before recent purchasers could even use their points, when it was selling to recent purchasers, that decision itself could be deemed a material fact that should have been revealed, and sales reps should not have been saying or implying there would be no change forthcoming. Thus, recent purchasers appear to have a better reason to complain than those who purchased in the past. Moreover, Disney raised point prices and the minimum add-on for BLT to 100 points just before announcing this change. That adds further fuel to the need to reveal the the new point chart changes to recent purchasers so they could possibly decide, when purchasing, to buy more points before the price and minimum add-on change took effect.

 

[dcfromva]

..... Recent Purchasers: ...... However, if Disney knew it was in fact going to make this change, which would go into effect before recent purchasers could even use their points, when it was selling to recent purchasers, that decision itself could be deemed a material fact that should have been revealed, and sales reps should not have been saying or implying there would be no change forthcoming. Thus, recent purchasers appear to have a better reason to complain than those who purchased in the past. Moreover, Disney raised point prices and the minimum add-on for BLT to 100 points just before announcing this change. That adds further fuel to the need to reveal the the new point chart changes to recent purchasers so they could possibly decide, when purchasing, to buy more points before the price and minimum add-on change took effect.

Right on! Well said! That is what I have trouble with. If Disney has been collecting this historical data since DVC opened, why wasn't the formula applied to the 2009 BLT points chart (which was used as a sales tool)? How could it change over the course of 4 months when it isn't even open, yet?

 

[Dean]

It's true that the 365 day base year cannot change but the reality is that not every year matches that base year mostly due to leap year effect both in terms of the extra day and in terms of when the year starts in regard to weekends vs weekdays. The requirement to be even is only to the base year of 365 days. Technically the product understanding check list is not a legal document and in some regards, neither is the multi site POS.

 

[CarolMN]

......(snip)....
3. Recent Purchasers: Also presented as black and white is the position of recent purchasers at BLT or AKV, some of whom, at least, were apparently told the points would remain the same. The response to their concerns has been that the documents they agreed to, and perhaps did not read, rule out their complaint. As noted above the documents are not as clear as many think. Also, the recent purchaser has a different issue than others. A timeshare seller is supposed to reveal any material facts that may impact on the decision to purchase. Disney possibly through the documents revealed that it was retaining the right to make the changes it did. However, if Disney knew it was in fact going to make this change, which would go into effect before recent purchasers could even use their points, when it was selling to recent purchasers, that decision itself could be deemed a material fact that should have been revealed, and sales reps should not have been saying or implying there would be no change forthcoming. Thus, recent purchasers appear to have a better reason to complain than those who purchased in the past. Moreover, Disney raised point prices and the minimum add-on for BLT to 100 points just before announcing this change. That adds further fuel to the need to reveal the the new point chart changes to recent purchasers so they could possibly decide, when purchasing, to buy more points before the price and minimum add-on change took effect.

This is precisely why I have been advising those who bought BLT to call their guides if they want to change the number of points they purchased. I think DVD will allow those members to make adjustments to the number of points purchased that are less than the 25 or 100 minimum, even if they have already closed. Perhaps the initial answer will be no, but eventually for those who push it, I predict they will allow it. I think they have to or at least will not want to fight about it.

My opinion and I am not a lawyer (although IIRC, drusba is)